Telstra Fears LulzSec Attacks, Hesitates On Internet Filter 188
After the earlier report that some of Australia's largest telcos (and ISPs) were to start censoring internet traffic based on a blacklist, rdnetto writes with the news that "Telstra is now hesitating to deploy the internet filter it had previously promised to implement, fearing reprisals from online vigilantes." The linked article specifically names LulzSec as the source of such reprisals.
Nice? (Score:1)
Re:Nice? (Score:5, Insightful)
And censorship never ends well either.
Too much "protection" and you have a totalitarian regime.
If you want to take out crime - do it at the source or check the cause for the crime first. Strangling the internet is like shooting the messenger.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to take out crime - do it at the source or check the cause for the crime first./i?
Shouldn't be too difficult to rearrange the worlds wealth equally, distribute the workload evenly to the populace, remove humans innate competitiveness, get rid of all people that are insane / have no self control, control the crazy teenagers and rewrite the rules of most societies. Lets get to work on that....
Re:Nice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't be too difficult to rearrange the worlds wealth equally, distribute the workload evenly to the populace, remove humans innate competitiveness, get rid of all people that are insane / have no self control, control the crazy teenagers and rewrite the rules of most societies. Lets get to work on that....
The people in the advanced countries now face a choice: we can express justified horror, or we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes. If we refuse to do the latter, we will be contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead. - Noam Chomsky
The issues you raise are solvable, and each one has been addressed at some point in some culture (except competitiveness but that would be foolish to remove), we just need to be willing to look at the cause.
Re:Nice? (Score:4, Insightful)
oh (Score:1)
Article is false. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that the real answer is any better than what the Australian said, but the truth is what matters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dig it:
In addition, the age of children depicted through content on the sites must be younger than 13 years of age, or perceived to be less than 13.
Nice little catchall there
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, didn't you hear about Australia banning tiny titties in porn? [theweek.com] After all, women with small breasts who are of legal age may play the role of underage girls in pornography, and that's like a single step removed from child pornography, which we all know causes nuclear devastation and must be stopped at all costs.
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 2: Give it some publicity
Step 3: Demand funding and protection based on speculation ('Maybe someone might attack us! Think of the children!')
Step 4: Profit! And power, too.
Looks like it still works.
Congratulations Lulzsec (Score:5, Insightful)
This really makes you wonder how a shadowy group of people on the internet have more influence than elected officials and regulatory boards. Of course, I guess that's because they have completely different goals... we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.
Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (Score:5, Insightful)
You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.
The average Western government each allows tens of millions of people to enjoy basic freedoms under the rule of law with a reasonably impartial justice system. By the standards of perfection, everywhere is awful; by contrast with justice in many places 40 (Spain, if you're gay?), 50 (Southern US, if you're black?) or 200 (Britain or France, if you're poor and steal a loaf of bread?) years ago, governments are in some areas doing really well. And if we spend a moment imagining ourselves as a chattel-wife in Saudi Arabia for a moment or held at gunpoint for everything around us in Somalia, suddenly that horrible rights-denying US doesn't seem so bad.
It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West. It's clear that we could demand and do a lot better. It's also clear that lulzsec's civil disobedience is having some sort of effect, although it's not quite clear how it'll play out (maybe it'll just be used as an excuse to impose more stringent anti-terror[tm] laws on the Internet?). But, when compared with history and the world in general, protecting the rights of common people is something your government almost certainly does more of every day than lulzsec. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, even if the baby is sick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Not to mention that (albeit not very scientific) programs like "What would you do" clearly show southern whites stand up for their black neighbors more than those in the north.
Re: (Score:2)
<3
-----
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
Love is not enough :-(.
Re: (Score:2)
your comments are derogatory
all southerners hate blacks therefore its the rule of law?
hogwash, there is just as many questionably motivated arrests in Detroit as there is in Atlanta, LA or DC
Re: (Score:3)
>It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West.
Really? Since 1981? So the 1970s was as good as we got? What about the 70s oil and energy crisis? Watergate? The Vietnam war? Pol Pot, and the West's apathy towards him? Pinochet leading a CIA-backed coup? Not to mention Margaret Thatcher.
The West has had ups and downs. You can certainly cherry pick things we've screwed up, but there are a lot progress being made behind the scenes. Sure, there's moral panics over terrorism
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Since 1981? So the 1970s was as good as we got?
In Western civil rights terms, yes.
What about the 70s oil and energy crisis?
This wasn't a civil rights issue.
Watergate?
The fact that the President not only could be impeached, but was impeached, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?
The Vietnam war?
This was a stain on the US, yes, but it ended in the middle of the decade. It also admitted a huge amount of popular and well-publicised protest. You even almost got rid of conscription - elimination of the Selective Slavery System, unfortunately, hasn't happened.
Pol Pot, and the West's apathy towards him? Pinochet leading a CIA-backed coup?
I guess you could argue that to igno
Re: (Score:2)
Thatcher was 1979 = 2011-30.
Lol, embarrassing. = should have read [unsupported symbol to indicate approximately equal to]. Thatcher didn't really start fucking things up until a year or two into power, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... it was more a braino than a typo: in my head I said \approx, which I could write =~, but that should be written =\sim, but I'll omit the LaTeX markup lest I sound even more pompous than usual. For some reason I've done that sort of thing often when de-TeXing for a general audience, although usually the formula is slightly more complex! The upshot is that I end up looking an idiot, which everyone surely agrees I deserve ;-).
Re: (Score:2)
Sir,
The other guy said he hates me with a passion (I wonder if it keeps him up at night?) but that Professr3 fails at reading comprehension. Given the context of your post, I'm going to chalk this one up to tragic irony.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the President not only could be impeached, but was impeached, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?
Nixon was not impeached. Clinton was. So you were wrong on both accounts (that there was an impeachment in the '70s and that there wouldn't be one again).
Re: (Score:3)
Nixon [washingtonpost.com].
Clinton's technical impeachment was trivial, partisan and he was acquitted. It was one of IIRC three attempts, the other two of which never reached trial. It was essentially an abuse of the impeachment process and didn't work. It was technically an impeachment but in spirit a waste of time.
Proceedings towards Nixon's impeachment received bipartisan support [washingtonpost.com] from the House Judiciary Committee, appropriately targeting an abuse of power with the Articles of Impeachment [watergate.info]. Everyone knew what the outcome woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because the average person thinks "impeached" means "removed from office" doesn't allow you to use the words wrongly. Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment. The case has to be brought before the grand jury. They started the process to get Nixon's case t
Re: (Score:2)
Even though I believe the impeachment process worked in Nixon's case but were abused against Clinton, you're right that it doesn't mean I should misuse the technical term "impeachment". I should have talked in terms of the effectiveness of "impeachment proceedings" or something. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
The government can spy on everybody, and shouldn't, but does; but they aren't acting on it very much.
Yes well, amassing power and abusing power at the same time doesn't tend to work so well. Dictatorship 101 says that by the time the public starts protesting, it should already be too late. The barriers, the self-imposed compartmentalization and restrictions the government puts on itself are nothing but curtains the government could pull aside or pierce at will. Handing them more and more power is like sticking your hand deeper and deeper in a bear trap on the logic that it hasn't snapped shut yet.
Besides,
Re: (Score:3)
No, the average Western government doesn't "allow" this, it's just along for the ride. The social structure and memes generated in the last couple hundred years allow it. And they are slowly but surely being eroded, in part by said governments.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, so many others are worse.
be glad its only the US broken-ness that we have to endure.
(your logic failed...)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed until you used "civil disobedience" to describe what they did.
Civil disobedience is not abiding, and thus breaking, a law in order to protest its injustice -- protesters use civil disobedience so that the crime and the unjust punishment can be starkly juxtaposed in the public eye. Lulzsec have broken only laws regarding computer fraud, yet they were not protesting computer fraud laws they thought unjust, they were protesting laws of censorship, i.e. they committed a different crime in retaliation for
Re: (Score:2)
The people who label themselves lulzsec have done more than one thing. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey a law considered unjust.
So, random acts of vandalism aren't really civil disobedience. But releasing information demonstrating corruption is likely civil disobedience - it's implicitly or explicitly argued that you believe such information should be public and that laws to the contrary are unacceptable and worth breaking. Looking somewhere in between, a DDoS might be civil disobedience - if some
Re: (Score:2)
Civil disobedience is not abiding, and thus breaking, a law in order to protest its injustice -- protesters use civil disobedience so that the crime and the unjust punishment can be starkly juxtaposed in the public eye. Lulzsec have broken only laws regarding computer fraud, yet they were not protesting computer fraud laws they thought unjust, they were protesting laws of censorship, i.e. they committed a different crime in retaliation for what they saw as injustice -- that is a HUGE difference.
Is it, now?
Indigenous people pitching tents on the lawn of the parliament is considered civil disobedience, even when they aren't protesting tent pitching laws.
Demonstrators sitting down in the road to stop a cortege of cars are demonstrating civil disobedience, even when they're not protesting pedestrian laws.
In short, you got this totally wrong. Civil disobedience is when you refuse to follow a civil order. That kind of follows from the name, really. Whether the order has anything to do with your cause
Re: (Score:2)
if we spend a moment imagining ourselves as a chattel-wife in Saudi Arabia for a moment or held at gunpoint for everything around us in Somalia
It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West.
So you're saying that one excuses the other here? "Our women are still allowed to drive and criminals aren't pointing guns at us, so it's okay for us to give up a little of our freedoms. It's all still good..."
Yeah, it's all still good, but like you said, definitely on the decline. There's always some sort of boogeyman (commies, pedophiles, terrorists, ...) to cause a scare. It's been only a few months since there was talk of the White House trying to implement a "shutdown" for the internet in a state of em
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that one excuses the other here? "Our women are still allowed to drive and criminals aren't pointing guns at us, so it's okay for us to give up a little of our freedoms. It's all still good..."
Since several respondents seem to have jumped to this conclusion, no, I'm definitely not saying that. I'm only saying what I said: we should acknowledge the good in what we have established (as well as the bad). There neither cancelling out of the good by the bad nor of the bad by the good.
Considering that NATO is getting their panties in a bunch over Anonymous I'm expecting that they're not going to suggest an open Internet as we know it today.
You know what irritates me perhaps more than is healthy? Thanks to the Internet we've seen a decline in amateur radio and shortwave listening, ham radio being the only true decentralised communications medium relying on n
Re: (Score:2)
we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.
Or the resurgence is an old world. Hacking is nothing new, neither is the hacker culture. Wikileaks was the spark that rekindled the soldering embers that once were in the 80s and 90s with their unwavering pursuit toward exposing organizations and governments (regardless of whether you agree with their actions or not). I expect we will see much more of these types of groups and actions until the US adopts serious net neutrality laws or in (one might wish) that they add net neutrality or freedom of informati
Re: (Score:2)
yes human nature starts with Reagan
that right there is part of the problem
Re: (Score:2)
btw, what kind of flux do you use when you solder embers? /sorry
Re: (Score:2)
You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years. This really makes you wonder how a shadowy group of people on the internet have more influence than elected officials and regulatory boards. Of course, I guess that's because they have completely different goals... we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.
A world that is increasingly-connected by computer networks is a new world, and this is one fascinating aspect of it. Powerful governments and institutions have embraced technologies that are barely understood by businessman/bureaucrats/elites and are difficult for them to protect and control; despite this, they've used their power to place this tech at the foundation of practically everything in the industrialized world. Typical short-term thinking, done in the pursuit of greed, hegemony, and increased p
Re: (Score:2)
mafia tactics.
over the centuries, they have always worked. fear is the main motivator in mankind.
the diff is that the governments usually used the fear card to keep citizens in line.
now, we have a 'citizens internet mafia' (in effect) scaring those in power (corrupt in power; important distinction) and getting a good result from it.
you know, its hard to tell one mafia from the other. entertainment mafiaas, government mafiaas and now the hacker mafiaas.
at the end of the day, you evaluate who helped your li
Re: (Score:2)
typo_correct: who helped *knockdown* those you consider bad or evil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't encourage these people.
Don't tell someone what ideals they can and can't support... Lest you want to be labeled a Fascist. There's a lot of dolts on the Internet, and they're paying the price now for using the same password at 100 websites.
I'm enjoying the show, to be honest. LulzSec haven't harmed anyone yet, and they've obviously got quite the audience. While only 270Kish twitter followers, I'm sure there's many more lurking it who don't use twitter that are following the story.
Now, because of LulzSec, for the first time a west
Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (Score:5, Interesting)
Lulzsec is just another part of a bigger cultural shift (wikileaks and "anonymous" as well) away from servitude into actual civil awareness. Yes, they quite often catch people in the cross-fire. Yes, they often act without any real goals, just to humiliate. However, they serve a role that has long since been shrugged off by people around the world, that of an actual opposition to the status quo.
I'm not an anarchist, but there is something poetic about a group of sarcastic hackers achieving what people want better than their government.
If I were you, I'd get used to it, because people are tired of the corruption. If it takes people like Lulzsec to actually get something done, so be it. There is a time for everything and the time for quiet obedience is past.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The dam is about to break. I suspect that governments have seen this coming for quite some time - hence the recent ramping-up of fear-mongering over the last decade. Cocksuckers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell me what I should encourage.
...
If I were you, I'd get used to it
Don't tell me what I should get used to.
This is an open discussion forum, and yes, people can tell you things, including what you should encourage and what you should get used to. And the readers make up their own minds based on information, rhetoric and their own reasoning.
Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't encourage these people. They might be attacking some organizations that we all hate. But at the same time, they attack legitimate organizations just for the kick.
I can't tell, are you talking about LulzSec or the government?
There's now... (Score:4, Interesting)
... a chilling effect on censorship
Victory for Civil Disodience (Score:2, Interesting)
I know there are going to be lot of nay sayers calling this anarchy but they think we don't know are we forgot that defying the "law" was the only way so many countries got their freedom from the Brits (Didn't Aussies have a freedom fight?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All that expensive infrastructure needs a lot of users paying in every month.
Just as empty buses rolled, users can find other isp's.
Re: (Score:2)
well what do you know. (Score:2)
Just what we need... (Score:2)
Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter (Score:3)
A note on Telstra's new filter. - and I suspect this has been done on purpose to make people think that the actual filter that labour is planning isnt all that bad in some kind of last ditch smooch attempt on Conroy - possibly due to Telstra and co getting left out of the NBN. If you look at what labour has proposed, it goes far beyond just the worst of the worst child abuse material and hence the public backlash. So I can't see any groups like Lulzsec getting all uperty about this filter since it is only blocking the very nasty stuff. Anyway nobody likes kiddy porn except the broken. So I can only imagine this is part of a FUD campaign by Telstra and Conroy to ease Ausies into his planned censorship regime and seed the idea that the whole filtering concept is infact just about blocking child abuse material - which is just not true.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah they aren't (ab)using the filter to block anything but the "worst of the worst" now, but the whole uproar over the original filter was unaccountable bureaucrats deciding what would go on the SECRET filter list. I don't see how Telstra deciding what goes on the secret filter list is really any better.
When some idiots claim that the works of Bill Henson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson) are child pornography (and thus a significant portion of classical and renaissance paintings and sculpture) th
Re: (Score:2)
First they came for the terrorists,
and i didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist
Then they came for the pedophiles,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pedophile.
Then they came for the flag-burners,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a flag burner.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Who gets to say what's on the list? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Write ins for medical, faith and political issues will then start to flow.
If you can print and post a nice letter, put together a reason why a site should be banned, it might be added
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The pot was just an example on how any secretive filter list can end will be abused.
Re: (Score:2)
it was the most piss poor example possible
ge willikers the government has pot blocked on a public terminal
Sorry Telstra (Score:2)
I don't care if they "blame" lulz... or if lulz really made a difference. Telstra sucks for agreeing to "filter" the Internet. Perhaps it's "great" they want to be like China and filter the Internet. The Internet does not want those filters.
"The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- John Gilmore, 1993. That meaning existed llong before Telstra existed, and long after they will.
Telstra - be quiet. You don't have the backbone to provide the freedom of Internet communication to the
Re: (Score:2)
Telstra - be quiet. You don't have the backbone to provide the freedom of Internet communication to the masses.
I actually wondered if they used this as an excuse to back out of putting the filter in because they don't really want to. Of course if they really did have a backbone they'd tell the government "no. this won't work, and even if it did work it would be wrong", but at least this way they won't turn on the filter but aren't directly disobeying the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When they knocked over public facing websites at cia.gov and senate.gov I thought, "Well, those sites should've been secured, and it's not like they got at anything important. Whatevs."
When they started taking phone call requests and DDoS'ing random game companies I thought, "Well that's stupid, but at least it's just ddos... it's only temporary and nothing should be broken."
Whe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Never understood this particular point of view. Government is there to function as your guardian and benefactor, with your elected representatives at helm. Corporation functions as a closed entity with no other goal then profit, even if that profit comes at expense of everything else (see: Bhopal).
Granted many modern governments in large countries became almost corporate in nature, almost as closet, corrupt and nepotistic as their megacorp counterparts. But at least they're still responsible for their actio
Re: (Score:2)
But at least they're still responsible for their actions to you, the voter, and you have, however small, power to change its course.
"However small"? The same could be said about corporations (to a certain extent). The problem is that voters don't all agree with one another (which just divides that power). Some people who do want change will likely often be vastly outnumbered by those who don't (or don't care). I don't believe that giving up is the answer, though.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The top modern corporations control so much wealth and property that they simultaneously have in most areas a near monopoly on goods and services and a monopsony on labor such that the vast majority of people are essentially slaves to the corporate elite in one way or another. We who don't own property can't own property, even though it is significantly less expensive and more stable than renting at hugely artificial rates, we have to work our asses off for absolutely nothing and there are no jobs and no op
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but if everyone stopped supplying them with money, they would eventually run out. Now, I know the chances of that happening are likely very unlikely, but my point is that he mentioned people having at least some degree of power over the government. The same can be said of corporations to a certain extent.
Re: (Score:3)
Not nearly all corporation rely on general populace for funding. In fact, many rely on government itself, while remaining almost totally independent of it (i.e. military-industrial complex).
Re: (Score:2)
They currently own around 70% of the wealth in the nation. We would all starve to death long before they run out of money.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, many times in history have companies become so powerful that the populace they rule over actually starves to the point where they can no longer produce anything for the upper class, and die out. Mind you, most of these companies have been religions, which can be very convincing. It happened to the Mayans, the Romans, and to the Vinland Nord colony, the easter island civilization, among many others. Corporations and other fiscal entities can continue on until they bleed the people to death. The only
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd say you have more control over most corporations than people do over most governments.
At least with corporations you can vote against them if you don't like what they are doing (not give them cash).
Try that with a government and if you're "lucky" and live in the "free" countries they'll lock you up, unlucky and they'll shoot you.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you vote against corporations "with cash" if you don't mind me asking? Many if not most of them don't accept any cash from general populace - their business is with smaller corporations or governments, such as major oil companies, construction companies, chemical companies, energy companies, defense companies and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, 5 years old? Haven't seen such naivete since I went to primary school.
Re: (Score:2)
Must have been some interesting primary school to fully purge all ability of critical thinking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conformity is the objective in most places.. Critical thinking is an anathema.. The fact is that government is a creation of those with the most capital, so naturally they will set the agenda to suit their needs
Re: (Score:2)
On an interesting note, many of US schools are in fact private...
Re: (Score:2)
We have a name for that political system, it starts with "f". Too much historical ballast for people to believe they're living in it though.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what's really sad? When you talk about how much of government in USA and much of West functioned in 60s and 70s, you get called "young" by modern young adults like you with no grasp on history whatsoever.
Strongly opinionated, certain of one's own correctness and completely clueless. To quote Churchill, "the best argument against democracy is a 15-minute talk with an average voter".
Re: (Score:2)
I shudder when thinking of whom this "we" might encompass.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there will be a Slashdot story about this soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been reported elsewhere (though I have no link to hand) that the actual change isn't that Telstra are deciding to not implement it at all, but that they're considering only implementing the anti-naked-children bit of it, and not the other list, given that not many people are likely to stand up and say "Don't cut off my nekkid children!"
Of course, it'd still be a step in that direction (and, yes, once the tech's there I imagine quietly adding URLs wont be hard at all), but it sort-of goes some way to ex
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that any decision made based in immediate fear is not really the right decision; even if the decision has a positive outcome, it was made it for the wrong reasons and is therefore not representative of any particular notion of "right." No lesson was learned, and any future decisions are unaffected. This is only effective if fear can be maintained indefinitely, which is nearly impossible. It's indistinguishable, in the long run, to a step backward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soon you may face your largest/only two mobile telecoms offering a clean feed unless you opt out to enjoy the full web as an adult who showed photo ID and pay extra?
Whats tested in loser zones like the UK, Australia, Canada often gets a roll out later in the US.
Just as facebook/google is searched during a job application, do you think your request for an "opt out" will be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this is commonly held amount thinkers, today.
so, while its a disturbing thought, at least realize you are in good (virtual) company. many of us SEE this. we are not blind as the administrations think we are. we will remember this dark time in our history. I just hope we get beyond this and move forward as a culture.
right now, I only see backward movement in our cultural evolution, as a species.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, this is textbook terrorism. Very sad to see so many Slashdotters supporting an un-democratic, hateful and downright fascist group.
Anon/Lulsec want to destroy the open Internet and set themselves up as a dictatorship.
You are attributing way too many ulterior motives to a bunch of bored and technologically capable teenagers.
Fear can cause this - you paint the enemy black, and assign all sorts of negatives to them. It's a flaw in logic, but helps justify a person's feelings and actions towards who they perceive as a threat.
They're in it for the lulz, and being human, they tend to kick those they don't like more than those they like. Just like you do in your characterization of them. Except that you presumably don't ge
Re: (Score:2)
I'll reply to you, but this is for all the folks saying this is not terrorism. Terrorists are not always the people you describe. Same goes for pirates (those Somalians don't all walk around with a wooden leg and a parrot yelling "Arr matey!"). What a terrorist's primary goal is, is to create fear. So much fear that actions performed by that body (in this case, Telstra) will rethink, alter or even abandon their intentions or actions. LulzSec has done exactly that. Forget about what CNN & Co. are teachin
Re: (Score:2)